Re: KT boundry event

On 22 May 2006 14:14:25 -0700, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in <uranium-1148332465.872917.278720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

Augray wrote:
On 22 May 2006 12:43:18 -0700, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in <uranium-1148326998.762627.313130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

Richard Forrest wrote:
UC wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:10:43 -0700, UC wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:40:57 -0700, UC wrote:

[snip big time]

Do you understand that my arrguments are about language, not biology?

Do you understand where language comes from? Language comes from the
people who use it. If those people are primarily biologists, then
arguments about language very likely are arguments about biology.

They could be linguistically naïve, you know. It could happen.

Impossible. Language comes from the people who use it. If they can
speak, they are not linguistically naive enough to matter.

Surely you cannot imagine that biologists and paleontologists are
lingusitics experts too?


But your point is about nonbiologists.

Actually, it works both ways.

You think (correct me if I
misunderstand you) that the biological terms don't apply to them.
Nonsense. Most of the words in the English language come from specialist
fields. If you want to talk about computers, you use the terms invented
by electronic engineers. If you want to talk about whaling, you use the
terms invented by whalers. If you want to talk biological taxonomy, you
use the terms of taxonomists.

Depends on who's doing the talking. We all know that creationists
(vomit) misuse and distort all kinds of terms.

*Everybody* misuses and distorts all kinds of terms. That is why people
refer to computer worms as viruses, why signs at checkout lines say
"seven items or less,"

'fewer'


ZOOOOOM!
(That was the sound of the point soaring straight over your head)


and why people speak of cement

'concrete'

sidewalks, instead
of using the "correct" terms. It is why Mirriam-Websters unabridged has
entries for flammable, miniscule, and ain't. With enough misuse, the
misuse becomes the standard use, and the language changes. Language
comes from the people who use it.

Of course, it is not so clear-cut as that. Many words for plants and
animals, such as "bird", pre-date taxonomy,

This is my argument, you know..

But you are focusing on that one point to the exclusion of the whole
picture, including the most important point: Language comes from the
people who use it.

But there are several kinds of language. Scientific language is
intended to be used for scientists. It has its own rules, set by
scientists. The vernacular (unless interfered with by those who have no
busibness doing so) gets along quite well.

So why the hell are you setting out rules for the vernacular use of the
word "bird" in that case?

Until scientists did so, no-one thought of referring to ancient animals
as 'birds'.

What do you base this claim on?

Hello?


and those have a folk meaning
in addition to their biological meaning. Thus "bug" can mean "an
insect of the group Heteroptera" or "any small crawling critter" or "an
electronic listening device." All those definitions are correct.

So what does "dinosaur" mean? It refers to the clade of primarily
Mesozoic creatures as taxonomists describe it.

It is not vernacular in origin...the only terms available before it was
coined were 'dragon' or 'lizard' or 'giant'...etc.

Dinosaur most assuredly is a vernacular term now. Its origin is
irrelevant; language comes from the people who use it.

It is a 'vernacularized' technical term.


So it's a vernacular term.

It is a 'vernacularized' technical term.

Actually, in
news:1147375827.878285.242480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx you wrote
that

"Dinosaur" is not really a vernacular term at all, but a
popularized form of "Dinosauria."


I wrote more words than "it's a vernacular term". My statement carries
a distinction that is necessary to observe.

You say a lot of things

Please do so or shut up.

Can you at least make up your mind about the status of "dinosaur"?

Well?


I'm glad you agreee.

I don't.

There are many vernacular words whose origin is as scientific terms.

No. There are many technical terms used by laymen, with varying degrees
of accuracy.

So, if there are "many technical terms used by laymen, with varying
degrees of accuracy", how do you know that excluding birds from
dinosaurs is accurate?

Non sequitur. We are talking here about technical terms. 'Bird' is not
a technical term, but rather vernacular.

The word under discussion is "dinosaur", which according to you *is a
technical term. So, being a layman yourself, how do you know that
you're using the term accurately when you claim that birds aren't
dinosaurs?


I tore the ACL in my left knee a few years back. Lots of
people tear their ACL. Do you know what an ACL is?

Anterior Cruciate Ligament:

http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cybertherapist/front/knee/anteriorcruciate.htm

Is there any vernacular term for it? Perhaps "knee ligament". The fact
that many people have torn their ACL, or have heard about athletes
tearing their ACL, hasd made 'ACL' a household word. Does that make it
vernacular? No......

It refers to the extinct
reptiles that boys play with plastic models of. It refers to anything
big and obsolete. In the first sense, birds are, unequivolcally,
dinosaurs.

Certainly not. Birds have evolved quite distinct characters not
possessed by dinosaurs as a group. That is why in NO sense are birds
dinosaurs. ALL dinosaurs are extinct, as are plesiosaurs and pterosaurs.

Sorry, but you do not get to make that decision, any more than you get to
change the title of another artist's painting. "Dinosaur" is defined, by
people who use the term (which means people who determine what the
language is) to include birds.

Not according to Merriam-Webster, which you will of course dismiss as
'out of date'. The word 'dinosuar' does IN FACT refer to extinct
animals that flourished in the Jurassic and Cretaceous. You want to
appeal to 'popular usage' when it suits you, but not when it does not.

So do you think that dictionaries do *not* become out of date as the
meanings of words change, and new words are added?

That has been the meaning of 'dinosaur' for many, many years. The
dictionary in question is the latest edition. At its coinage, in 1842
by Owen, it was intended to refer to the large fossils which represent
animals that no longer roam the Earth. That meaning was intended by its
creator, and it retained that meaning ever since.

And the basis for this claim is what, exactly?

Besides, why rely on Owen? After all, he called Archaeopteryx a bird.

He felt that he could do so, as there was this word 'bird', handy, and
Archaeopteryx has <<<<<some>>>>> characteristics of birds. But there
was nothing known to man remotely like the large reptilians, and thus
no vernacular word for them, so he coined 'Dinosauria'.

But he was wrong about Archaeopteryx:

"What has reptilian teeth, a long bony tail, three clawed fingers on
each forearm and...feathers? Archaeopteryx, of course. Sometimes
referred to as the first bird we now understand Archaeopteryx to be
part of a group related to the ancestors of modern birds. While
Archaeopteryx had true feathers and could fly, <<<< the creature was
mostly dinosaurian in form>>>>>."

http://www.paleoclones.com/dinosaurs/archaeopteryx.htm

So, now you're reduced to referring to a company that reproduces
fossils? And surprisingly,
http://www.paleoclones.com/dinosaurs/index.htm has a link to the page
you cited, and calls it "first bird".

Here's another quote for your collection:

The earliest bird with which we are at present acquainted is the
well known _Archaeopteryx_...
- Frederic Lucas (1895)


The editors of the Oxford Dictionary will be very surprised to hear
this.

You have absolutely no say in the matter.
There are other definitions of dinosaur which you do have a say in, but
those are other, different, definitions; you still do not get to change
the definition that says dinosaurs includes birds.

Yes, I do. You have NO authority whatsoever over vernacular usage,

Neither do you, though you claim it.

I give presentations to schools in which I emphasise the fact that
birds are dinosaurs (and therefore far less interesting than
plesiosaurs, but that's another story ). I'm changing the vernacular
use of both 'bird' and 'dinosaur', as I'm perfectly entitled to do.

That's lying. It's also despicable.

Who *is* entitled?

YOU are certainly not! You have NO such authority. It's intellectually
dishonest.

You're trying to evade the question. Rather clumsily too.


If you want to tell me that I'm wrong to do so, feel free. I shall, of
course, ignore you.

I do, and I shall take steps to stop it.

Really? How?

Just wait...and see....

I'm all aquiver.


If you want to say " 'Aves'
are members of 'Dinosauria' ", be my guest, but do NOT say "birds are
dinosaurs" because it's false.

It's absolutely true.

It's absolute garbage, and you know it.

No, I don't. I conveys a profound truth.


only over the Linnaean usage, and the two are not interchangeable.


In the second sense, birds may or may not be dinosaurs, depending on
how well educated the boy is; and other technically non-dinosaurs such
as pterodons may be dinosaurs. In the third sense, my old S-100
computer sitting in the corner is a dinosaur.

I understand what you mean. The third sense in metaphorical, the second
sense is "Hollywoodized', and the first is taxonomical.

I would say common usage rather than Hollywoodized, but close enough.

So if you want to say that birds are not dinosaurs, you are right
insofar as you are describing *your* usage of dinosaur. If you want to
say that it is wrong for others to say that birds are dinosaurs, you
are entirely wrong.

Nope.

Sorry. Birds are dinosaurs. It's a done deal. It's out of your hands.
It was never in your hands in the first place.

(snip)


You're a liar....

And you base that claim on what, exactly?

The fact that you lie....liars are people whio tell lies...just like
computers are that which computes....

But you've yet to show what the lie actually is. You, on the other
hand, are known to omit information that you disagree with, thereby
lying by omission.

.

Quantcast